What time period are you talking about? After Burgundian rule they came under Austrian Habsburg rule for almost a century before going to Spain and then splitting up.They were already very prosperous even before the Burgundians. Under the Habsburgs, the trade with the New World colonies and Spain was very lucrative, especially for Antwerp where a lot of luxury goods and silver passed through which attracted a lot of merchants and bankers.If they somehow got annexed by France after the death of Charles the bold, they'd probably have missed out on this.

>>6626066Well looking at the difference between france andthe netherlands I would say no. The french are too latin to be as prosperous as the germanic countries.For example Air France and KLM fused a few years ago, the french pilots have since then been on a strike a dozen times hurting the company while the pilots of the KLM have been working on as professionals should and so the KLM is still a growing company. This already shows the difference between the latin and germanic way of life. Latins including non-french ones are entitled, irresponsible and childish people especially compared to the northern european germanic nations. I'm a southern euro myself so I know what I'm talking about.

Yeah but since when and why?Northern Italy did so well compared to Northern Europe, excluding the Low Countries, up until somewhere in the Early modern era.Meanwhile, Germany was hardly innovative or productive until the 18th-19th century.

Also, could a northern euro have easier career advancement in say Italy, because of this difference in work ethic?

Did you know France has 4 times the population of the Netherlands but 4,5 times the GDP?

If you have an above median wage, stable job in France you are richer than in the Netherlands. France has the highest concentration of millionaires in the world. The big difference is that inequality is much higher between social classes and geographic regions.

>>6628851Imagine being this delusional. Not in any gdp comparison does France come close to Netherlands. I’ve lived in France and live now in Netherlands, simply delusional to think above average are better off in France than in Netherlands.

A brief history of Belgium would tell you that frogs ruling over Germanic folk does not go well. The dark century of 1830-1950ish saw a historically prosperous region that had just started to recover under the Unified Netherlands thrown back into the mud. Over a century the frogs denied the Flemish speakers access to education, government services, jobs and even a fair trail. All of which we had under the Dutch even when the Dutch where of a different faith. The frogs even denied Flanders elections for the first decade of belgium being a "state" because they justly feared that if the few people with actual voting rights, heavily slanted towards the french speakers as it was. They would at an instant vote for an orangist and seek to join up with the Dutch again. Only after the first world war but even more so after the second world war when money came in that was not controlled/distributed soly via the frag elites that Flanders started to prosper again. And while the frogs stuck to their heavy industries and vain institutions. Flanders freed and allowed to make use of it's own brains has grown to one of the richest regions in the world. And where it not for the constant leftwing voting in the other part of belgium we'd be even better off. To day via federal, social security and european redistribution schemes about 9000 euro flows south to the frogs every year. Not only that but several major firms critical to the economy where sold out by frogs to other french frogs resulting in practically all of our energy market and the bulk of our banking sector being run from Paris.

>>6628987And don't even get me started on how the french parties actively used mass immigration to make the capitol "french speaking" by making it a haven for third world immigrants that can barely speak french and never bother to learn Flemish.

Now imagine the shit that the french speakers have done to Flanders, how it has oppressed it, retarded it and now that is has grown strong than them suck it like a parasite and apply it to the whole of the Lowcountries. And you get an idea of how it would be.And all the contributions made by these countries and it's peoples gone or delayed costing wider humanity even more than the frogs already have.

And for those whom say I’m biased as I’m clearly Flemish and a nationalist. I merely have the bias of the righteous denouncing the devil.

>>6629145sorry mid read it as "didn't you join at that point"well first we'd have to separate belgium which the frogs won't allow us to do because the whole being dependent on transfers from Flanders.Then you have the internal problem of nationalism being seen as a right wing thing and even if you could fund social welfare a lot better as an independent Flanders the lefties would never just agree to it. thirdly we have grown appart from the Dutch in culture quite a lot to the point that while we understand each otehr and get allong. We have some tentions. And they would have all the power so traiding in the master you know for a new master with more power is kind of iffy. And forth the EU would never allow it. Certain other member states have issues with separatist movements and so that would be political dynamite. And even if that where settled it would cause to much disruption for the eurocrats.

>>6628987>frogs ruling over Germanic folk does not go wellConveniently starting in the 19th century and forgetting the Burgundians, eh retard?

>>6629981I'm Flemish and I agree with that guy: you guys are fucked in the head.There are a lot of reasonable criticisms to hurl at Walloon politicians but you guys make up a paranoid narrative where everything bad can be attributed to the entire south of the country.

It's not without reason De Wevers brother is also a historian but diametrically opposed to Flemisch nationalism.

>>6630804mainly because he is an insufferable leftwinger that hates the guts of his brother. I've heard his talks he can't go two paragraphs without shitting on the right even when talking about major left wing scandals like the augusta scandal.

That being said those numbers are from the federal government it's self and where ordered not by the Flemish nationalist parties but by the cd&v and cdh.

>french nobility prior to the french revolution>ethnically frenchFranks where not frogs

>>6631463Sure, the classic "he's a leftwinger so I don't have to take him seriously argument" you guys like to use all the time.It's not just him though, I studied history at a university and De Wever isn't exactly popular with the large majority of historians there either.

I'm not even disputing the numbers, (too much) money goes to the south, no question about it and this is due to structural economic problems.Flemish nationalists however use this economic fact to promote an entire narrative in which everything bad is due to the Walloons and the 'evil' is inherent to their culture or whatever and is therefore unchangeable.

>>6631796>You're just shifting your definition of 'frogs' aroundthe question asked by the tread is: how would the low countries have fared under French rather than german rule.Since germany nor france was a thing for the majority of the period we are talking about an assumption as to the ethnicity of the rulers can be inferred. germanic vs. latin ruling class. In which case pointing out the shift in the ethnic composition of the french ruling class with the french revolution is only fair. As it is relevant to the question posed.

The reason why he's a left wing moonbat is relevant is: because he is a left wing moonbat he's hardly an authority to prop up your argument. Go get some more center or at least more respected and trusted academics to prop up your argument if you'd want to. I can recall classes under Prof. Heirbaut and his views on how the french elite treated the Flemish. And he's hardly a far righter. It is not a narrative it is true. We were held back by the "belgium will be latin or it will not be" attitude of the ruling class. With among other things of interest a movement in wallonia to get rid of Flanders while they were booming economically (by filling their mines and smelters with Flemish immigrant workers).It was the Flemish that had to propose and fight for equal treatment and in many cases we still don't have it. The diplomatic core requires perfect french but no skill in dutch. Brussels has become a monolingual French zone with better help in english than dutch. The french education system still doesn't have mandatory dutch lessons.And all the while they want a unified belgium to give them gibs and power.

You don't dispute the validity of anything I've posted. You only decry the "narrative" because you don't like the politics that come with it.And because you are likely balndino scum I won’t hold it against you. Afterall it mustn’t be fun being an history major. Art. 1382 BW law student representing the superior faculty.

>>6631868He's not specific about which period but since 'German rule' can only refer to Austrian rule, he must be talking about the period before the French revolution. You start your 'history' in the 19th century, ignoring the period of Burgundian rule which can reasonably be seen as a kind of 'French' rule. Also, why wouldn't you see them as French? Give me a source for this supposed ethnic shift. They spoke French, they were decendents from the Valois, so give me a reason why they wouldn't count? Are you claiming territories in current France around 1400 weren't ruled by an elite which was culturally French?

Yes he is an authority because he's a respected academic who writes peer-reviewed articles. You calling him a leftist doesn't change this in any way.

It is a narrative because nationalists frame these problems as some kind of a cultural clash where the Walloons are inherently evil/diabolical>I merely have the bias of the righteous denouncing the devilI'm not saying injustices didn't and don't still exist, I'm saying nationalists frame these problems in a specific way to support their romantic separatist goals.

The most obvious counterargument is that 19th century 'latin' oppression was a fact, but this was hardly a matter of all Walloons oppressing all Flemish, it was a matter of a French-speaking elite oppressing the Flemish (and insofar as the Walloons were exploited factory workers they were also oppressed).

The reason why Wallonia today is relatively poor and way too socialist for their own good is largely due to the timing of industrialization. I can cite Dutch historian Van Rossem here. They industrialized early (heavy industry) and socialist parties/unions took root here very deeply because the catholic/christian-democratic alternative which is so succesful in Flanders didn't exist yet. The proof of this is Ghent: one of the only regions in Flanders to industrialize early (textiles) and even today it's still a red bastion.

>>6632055My point is that Wallonia's problems are akin to those of the American rust belt and that these have structural economic causes. They aren't the result of some evil, unchangeable Latin cultural defect. Your politics and your narrative don't logically follow from history.

I'm a history major, but I also have one in business economics, so don't worry about me.

>>6632055>they were decedents from the Valoisand the Valois are in turn descendants of the Franks As for culture the culture of the noble elites had more of a pan-european culture than a localized "national" one. And the very notion of using the current national borders to sort the past is not at all accurate and you know it. The nation states did not exist and the very notion of a nation state did not exist jet. Hence why I assume it’s more ethnic over state affinity.

> it was a matter of a French-speaking elite oppressing the Flemishwhich I have been if I recall been saying. The same problem persists to this day tough in that those Latin speakers do not want to work towards adjusting themselves to a multi lingual reality. The French want to keep English if the radio, the Walloons do not want to learn Dutch and even the rests of the French speaking elites self-segregate into little francophone bubbles.It is that we are expected to do the heavy lifting for co-existing in the same state while it is to their benefit.

The oppression as being merely a problem of the local French speaking elite also gets shot out from under you when you look at the creation of el creatura known as the belgian state. The revolt of 1830 was localized in the Latin parts of Belgium. And when not in the Latin parts only by parts of the elites, those who had their position thanks to the French. In Flanders there was strong opposition to the revolt and the majority of the elite sided with the Dutch. It was after to creation of the state that this pro Dutch elite was squeezed out. Their jobs now requiring them to speak French, higher education now only in French, commissions only given to loyal revolutionary officers ect. What Dutch speaking elite there was got suppressed (no elections) and replaced. And those doing the replacement where often not other locals. to be cont.

As for the industrial origins of the socialist movement and the comparison to Gent. Aside from the fact that Gent leans right by 1%. You are in fact proving the assumed narrative of Walloons evil right. In that by your explanation for current voting is a deterministic one going all the way back to the 19th century. Wallonia is doomed to be a socialist hellhole and there is nothing we can do about it. Ergo why stick with it?

>Yes he is an authority because he's a respected academic who writes peer-reviewed articles.So has Heirbaut, he even wrote on the very topic and is the professor of history of law at Ugent so he is quite familiar with the legal mechanisms used to keep the flemish speakers down. Nor does him publishing peer-reviewed papers give him any authority in a field he does not publish on. He is far more a public person like his brother than an academic. And when he is speaking as a public person his bias is a legitimate criticism to be leveled at him, not when he is publishing under review. And from having spoken to him he is very, very close minded about just about every thing. Don't like abortion? Catholic fascist!Don't want the transfers to continue? bourgeois fascist! Don't like mass immigration? Nazi!Think that collaboration might have to do with the demands of the Flemish movement getting shot down again and again? Nazi and Fascist apologist!

>>6632168when the union of the Netherlands got broken up we ranked in the top ten global powers. If we had stuck together we would probably have been the weakest of the 3 major West European powers (UK, France, united Germany) but stronger than the other West-European powers ( Italy, Spain, Austria Hungary).Although with more economic and cultural power than military power.

>>6632149And since the French revolution the elites suddenly do count as having the popular 'French' culture or what? This is an arbitrary divide so you can ignore whatever came before. You can easily argue that even today the upper-middle classes and up have a kind of shared cosmopolitan culture compared to the lower classes, but still we speak of national cultures. In any case, counting the Burgundians as having some kind of Frankish culture is pure BS.

Your original argument was that elites with the French culture ruling over Germanic cultural territories doesn't work, implying the culture is to blame.>frogs ruling over Germanic folk does not go wellThe Burgundians can reasonably be said to fall under the French culture, so why did Burgundian rule work?

>which I have been if I recall been sayingNo, you conflate the French-speaking elite with ordinary Walloons and the general Latin culture all the time. >>6628987you use 'elites' one time, 'the frogs' a million times. >>6628994>the shit that the french speakers have done to Flanders>the righteous denouncing the devilSo who is it? Is the elite evil/corrupt? The ordinary Walloons too?If you're still arguing the Latin cultures ruling Germanic cultures doesn't work for cultural reasons, prove it's the culture and not just a greedy elite. And if it's the culture of the elite which is to blame, why did Burgundian rule work?

>The revolt of 1830 was localized in the Latin parts of BelgiumAnd now a source to prove this regional difference in support isn't just a nationalist myth. I have 'De politiek geschiedenis van België. Van 1830 tot heden.' here which doesn't mention this at all and rather refers to a broad middle-class movement. Also your pro-Dutch elite consisted merely of traders and industrialists with economic interests in the North (even including some Walloons).

>>6632374>You are in fact proving the assumed narrative of Walloons evil rightAgain who's evil? The general latin Walloon culture or just the elite?Also, my point proved that cultures and voting preferences change and are to a large extent formed by socio-economic conditions which change, now more than ever.Wallonia isn't doomed to be a socialist hellhole and their culture isn't static.Just look at the difference in culture between todays generation and that of the boomers: the latter were still largely catholic, going to church every sunday, not highly educated while today barely anyone is still religious and more highly educated than ever.Technology changes at an unprecedented rate and so do socio-economic conditions.

There's still barely any support among historians for the way Flemish nationalists look at Belgian history. De Wevers brother is no exception, De Wever himself is.

Also:>can't refute this dudes authority on history, better try to discredit his field.Next to calling people leftists, probably the laziest tactic Flemish nationalists can come up with.

>>6632181>Think that collaboration might have to do with the demands of the Flemish movement getting shot down again and againIncidentally, recent research has shown that most collaboration happened out of ideological sympathy for the nazis, see Aline Sax, Voor Vlaanderen, volk en fuhrer.

>>6628987Here are a couple of Belgian Prime ministers from 1830-1950.>Mûelenaere>de Meylandt>Van de Weyer>de Decker>Beernaert>de Naeyer>Vandenpeereboom> Schollaert>CooremanDo any of those names sound like french to you? The frogs and Walloons never oppressed the Flemish, you absolute tard. It was the French speaking Flemish bourgeoisie that were mostly to blame for that.

>>6628994You idiot. Immigrants didn't turn Brussels french, the Flemish did. Brussels elementary education during the first half of the 20th century used to be exclusively french. This however caused a massive setback for the majority of the children, since Brussels was mostly Flemish at the time. So schools decided to start teaching in dutch during the first couple of grades allowing the mostly poor and uneducated Flemish students to catch up on the curriculum and smoothing the way to a french higher education. This was so successful that there was suddenly a massive influx of Flemish students in the academia and and gave the opportunity to many Flemish to climb the social ladder in Belgium. However, once this generation had children of their own they choose to send their sons and daughters exclusively to french schools since Flemish was still associated with social and cultural retardation at the time. Thus this subsequent generation forgot the language their parents once spoke in Brussels.

Yes, Brussels turned french because they started teaching dutch in schools.

>>6630804>Conveniently starting in the 19th century and forgetting the Burgundians, eh retard?to be entirely fair, the low countries under Burgundian 'rule' were mostly ruled by local administrators and nobility Burgundians knew damn well that the low countries had something good going on, being the economic heart of north sea europe and weren't about to try and fix something that wasn't broken

>>6626097They were and still are the economic centre of Europe because of Geography, they were under the french, bourgundians, habsburgs and the spanniards. The southern part became a economically stagnant because of northern blockades, otherwise the region would have dominated the economical climate of Europe after the italian states lost influence.

This is all bullshit. Belgium existed as a unified entity since Austrian times. If actually read a book instead of retarded nationalistic posters you would know that the united belgian states already fought for their independence in 1790 under a flemish general. The issue that tore the united netherlands apart is in my opinion due to brussels and Amsterdam being two large cities with a big sphere of influence.

Secondly the catholic church was and still is the cornerstone for flemish education. Imagine a bureaucrat in amsterdam trying to fire your local priest-teacher, who was pretty much the most important person in small communities.

The netherlands broke apart because of drastic measures that were taken by the Dutch monarch, the walloons had literally no say in this. Brussels as well as Amsterdam were capitals of the kingdom but Brussels was essentially ignored. The language issue was raised by the bourgoisie, in flanders as well as wallonia.

One could argue that the southern Netherlands have more cultural history together than flanders has with the northern Netherlands. But to get that argument you should have had basic history education in flanders and i'm guessing you didn't go to the most reputable school. Next time try a catholic school maybe?

>>6629145I recently went on an exchange project with a lot of Flemish and Dutch people. We (the Flemish people) pretty much immediately made our own group because we're culturally just so different. We might love eachother, but the two regions are still very different.

>>6628987>Not only that but several major firms critical to the economy where sold out by frogs to other french frogs resulting in practically all of our energy market and the bulk of our banking sector being run from Paris.The Société Générale was dismantled by Lippens in 1988. And it was Leterme who sold off Fortis in 2008. How is it possible to be so wrong on so many points?

>>6632149>The revolt of 1830 was localized in the Latin parts of Belgium. And when not in the Latin parts only by parts of the elites, those who had their position thanks to the French. In Flanders there was strong opposition to the revolt and the majority of the elite sided with the Dutch. It was after to creation of the state that this pro Dutch elite was squeezed out. Oh boy, your ignorance is showing again. "The Belgian elite" didn't exists in 1830, it was a diverse group with many different and conflicting interests. The large industrial owners, who were mostly located in Wallonië at the time, were not opposed to Willem I. They benefited massively from his economic investments as well as the imports from the Dutch colonial empire. It was mostly the lower bourgeoisie, middle class and non mechanized craftsmen, who were left out of Willem's investments, that harbored the most resentment towards the Dutch. But these actors were nowhere near powerful enough to topple the Dutch on their own. It was only when the Catholic church decided to weigh in that things started to change. The Catholic church, who predominant held sway over Flanders at the time I remind you, was sick of a Dutch protestant king meddling with their affaires all the time. So it was only after the Catholics joined forces with the liberals of the middle class in their famous "monster alliance" that the revolution managed to succeed. In fact, the Belgian pro Dutch Orangist movement in the subsequent years after the revolution was mostly led by these large industrials. It was only after Belgium consolidated its power after the revolutionary wave of 1848 that the large industrial owners had embedded themselves enough in the new state that the Orangists disappeared. Their interests were secured and they no longer needed Willem I to help serve their industry, they were now capable of running their own business and investments with the young Belgium state as their new vehicle.

>>6633702shame europe had to go full autism with monarchs after the french revolution united netherlands would have actually worked had it been a republicenshrine freedom of religion properly, don't force the wallonians to speak dutch and ensure proper regional representation and the whole thing smoothly goes into a very prosperous 19th century

>>6634329well for Clovis and Charles Martel, Belgium didn't exist back then and the migration era wasn't yet over so putting any kind of modern nationality on rulers from that era is foolish to begin with